Narrative:

We were assigned to [an] aircraft that was just coming out of maintenance; so we went out to preflight. The aircraft was covered with a substantial amount of corrosion on various fasteners around the cabin and cockpit windows; engine cowlings; wings; fuselage and tail. We also found the #5 seat would not track correctly. We called the company to let them know what we were about to write up. After a few minutes a technician from the service center came out to inquire about what we were writing up so we explained it to him and pointed out most of it. It resulted in approximately 34 write ups. He seemed upset but didn't say anything and went off on the ramp to the other side of the aircraft. I didn't pay any more attention other than to notice him then walking back in to the service center several minutes later. Shortly after I noticed him walk back in our [chief pilot] called us and told us that a technician had just called in to report that he had 'overheard' us saying that '...we were going to go out and ground the airplane regardless...' or something to that affect; which is a complete lie. There was actually a financial incentive for us to fly the trip we were assigned due to the rules in our contract about a long day on day one of our trip. During the time we were working on the write ups; our site manager came out to see what was up. We once again explained what we were writing up and showed him as well. He was understanding and asked us if we needed anything. He was very helpful; to the point of going in and making copies of the form so we would have enough to make all the write-ups. Several days later; after bringing in an aircraft to cmh the night before; we were assigned to [another aircraft]. As soon as we got to the aircraft we found it was also covered with corrosion. My partner went inside to get a mechanic to show them what we were going to write up and started receiving attitude about corrosion not being a 'safety of flight issue.' I reminded the mechanic that we don't have the option to overlook things that don't meet their convenient definition of safety of flight. For example if a piece of trim is damaged or falling off; or the lav is broken; I don't have the option of overlooking them because they are not a safety of flight issue. My job is to document them to reflect the condition and status of the aircraft and so they can schedule them to be fixed. If they can be MEL'd then we drive on and if not; we are done. While finishing the preflight we also found damaged rubber grommets in the tail and an excessive fluid leak coming from the bottom of the APU box. While filling out the logbook we received an email from the maintenance controller requesting us to leave the deferral section of the rubber grommets blank because they would just fix them while it was in. I called him to confirm and asked if he had seen the write up for the fluid leaking from the APU. He responded that he had not and began to give me attitude about the corrosion write ups but stopped himself mid-sentence saying that he was '...just going to get himself in trouble;' then hung up.along with a couple other maintenance controllers I have also received this type of attitude from [other maintenance personnel]. I am concerned that a culture of intimidation could be developing within the maintenance department and that is troubling. Over the last couple of years there has been a serious increase in the amount of corrosion being found on the aircraft in our fleet; more specifically the citation excel; and with it; the amount of attitude given to those who write it up. It's as if at some point [our company] stopped doing any kind of preventive maintenance corrosion inspections on the fleet. I will add that there are aircraft online that have obviously just had corrosion painted over rather than properly fixed in order to move the metal. I can't prove that; but based on my decades of experience with corrosion; it is obvious in some cases.it goes without saying that a corrosion inspection cycle would result in more control over fleet availability and reduce the unexpected grounding of aircraft because of something that is preventable. Regardless; it is important that [our company] be reminded of our responsibility to document any and all discrepancies we are aware of on the aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CE-560XL First Officer reported several instances of pressure from his company to ignore maintenance items during preflight; including corrosion issues.

Narrative: We were assigned to [an] aircraft that was just coming out of maintenance; so we went out to preflight. The aircraft was covered with a substantial amount of corrosion on various fasteners around the cabin and cockpit windows; engine cowlings; wings; fuselage and tail. We also found the #5 seat would not track correctly. We called the company to let them know what we were about to write up. After a few minutes a technician from the Service Center came out to inquire about what we were writing up so we explained it to him and pointed out most of it. It resulted in approximately 34 write ups. He seemed upset but didn't say anything and went off on the ramp to the other side of the aircraft. I didn't pay any more attention other than to notice him then walking back in to the service center several minutes later. Shortly after I noticed him walk back in our [chief pilot] called us and told us that a technician had just called in to report that he had 'overheard' us saying that '...we were going to go out and ground the airplane regardless...' or something to that affect; which is a complete lie. There was actually a financial incentive for us to fly the trip we were assigned due to the rules in our contract about a long day on day one of our trip. During the time we were working on the write ups; our Site Manager came out to see what was up. We once again explained what we were writing up and showed him as well. He was understanding and asked us if we needed anything. He was very helpful; to the point of going in and making copies of the form so we would have enough to make all the write-ups. Several days later; after bringing in an aircraft to CMH the night before; we were assigned to [another aircraft]. As soon as we got to the aircraft we found it was also covered with corrosion. My partner went inside to get a mechanic to show them what we were going to write up and started receiving attitude about corrosion not being a 'safety of flight issue.' I reminded the mechanic that we don't have the option to overlook things that don't meet their convenient definition of safety of flight. For example if a piece of trim is damaged or falling off; or the lav is broken; I don't have the option of overlooking them because they are not a safety of flight issue. My job is to document them to reflect the condition and status of the aircraft and so they can schedule them to be fixed. If they can be MEL'd then we drive on and if not; we are done. While finishing the preflight we also found damaged rubber grommets in the tail and an excessive fluid leak coming from the bottom of the APU box. While filling out the logbook we received an email from the Maintenance Controller requesting us to leave the deferral section of the rubber grommets blank because they would just fix them while it was in. I called him to confirm and asked if he had seen the write up for the fluid leaking from the APU. He responded that he had not and began to give me attitude about the corrosion write ups but stopped himself mid-sentence saying that he was '...just going to get himself in trouble;' then hung up.Along with a couple other Maintenance Controllers I have also received this type of attitude from [other maintenance personnel]. I am concerned that a culture of intimidation could be developing within the maintenance department and that is troubling. Over the last couple of years there has been a serious increase in the amount of corrosion being found on the aircraft in our fleet; more specifically the Citation Excel; and with it; the amount of attitude given to those who write it up. It's as if at some point [our company] stopped doing any kind of preventive maintenance corrosion inspections on the fleet. I will add that there are aircraft online that have obviously just had corrosion painted over rather than properly fixed in order to move the metal. I can't prove that; but based on my decades of experience with corrosion; it is obvious in some cases.It goes without saying that a corrosion inspection cycle would result in more control over fleet availability and reduce the unexpected grounding of aircraft because of something that is preventable. Regardless; it is important that [our company] be reminded of our responsibility to document any and all discrepancies we are aware of on the aircraft.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.